E. L. EGAN, OPERATING UNDER THE TRADE NAME OF MAGIC CITY TOURIST CAMP, ET AL.,
v.
THE CITY OF MIAMI, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
E. L. Egan and other operators of tourist camps challenged Miami's Ordinance 1617 regulating tourist camps, tent cities, and trailer parks, arguing the city lacked authority and the ordinance was unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of their complaint, holding that municipalities have concurrent authority with state agencies to regulate such facilities and that the ordinance's health and sanitary requirements are reasonable and non-arbitrary.
The City of Miami had authority to enact the ordinance because municipalities may supplement state regulations within their jurisdiction. The ordinance's additional health and sanitary requirements are reasonable and non-arbitrary. Injunctive relief was properly denied because appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable injury and had an adequate remedy at law.
“we do not understand that the general law empowering the State Board of Health and the Hotel Commission to impose health and sanitary regulations on appellants deprives the municipalities of power to supplement the regulations so imposed within their jurisdiction.”
Establishes that municipalities have concurrent authority to regulate in addition to state agencies, resolving the central authority question.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceE. L. Egan and others operating tourist camps filed a bill of complaint in circuit court seeking to restrain the City of Miami from enforcing Ordinanc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Municipal Police Power cases and more on FLexlaw
The Appellants as complainants filed their bill of complaint in the Circuit Court asking to restrain the City of Miami from enforcing Ordinance Number 1617, regulating among other things, tourist camps, tent cities, and trailer parks. A motion to dismiss the bill of complaint was granted and the instant appeal was prosecuted from that order. .
It is first contended that the city was without authority to enact Ordinance Number 1617, that the power to regulate tourist camps, tent cities, and trailer camps was vested under the law exclusively in the Hotel Commission and the State Board of Health, both of which had imposed every needed regulation on them.
This question appears to have been answered contrary to the contention of Appellant in Miller v. Quigg, 87 Fla. 462, 100 So. 270, where a similar1 question involving a similar charter was under consideration. Further discussion of it would therefore seem unnecessary.
It is not out of place to state, however, that we do not understand that the general law empowering the State Board of Health and the Hotel Commission to impose health and sanitary regulations on appellants deprives the municipalities of power to supplement the regulations so imposed within their jurisdiction. State v. City of Miami, 101 Fla. 292, 134 So. 608; City of Apalachicola v. State, 93 Fla. 921, 112 So. 618; Sanders v. Howell, 73 Fla. 563, 74 So. 802.
The City of Miami having power to enact the ordinance brought in question, the next question with which we are confronted is whether or not it has exercised that power in a valid and constitutional manner.
An examination of the record and the applicable law discloses that in its zoning and other ordinances for the *468preservation of the health of the city, it has included twenty-three sections or regulations, fourteen of which are the identical regulations enforced by the Hotel Commission and as we understand, are not complained of. The additional regulations imposed by the city have to do with construction of cottages, their distance apart, drainage, toilets, baths, lighting, ventilation, and other requirements essential to the health and sanitary living conditions of the inhabitants of the city. We do not find them arbitrary or unreasonable and the power of the City of Miami to promulgate and enforce such regulations has been repeatedly upheld. State, ex rel. Henry, v. City of Miami, 117 Fla. 594, 158 So. 82; State, ex rel. Skillman, v. City of Miami, 101 Fla. 585, 134 So. 541.
. The order dismissing the bill of complaint may also be affirmed on the theory that it seeks to enjoin the enforcement of a municipal ordinance which has not been declared void and ineffective. It is quite true that Appellants contend the record discloses that compliance with the ordinance on their part will impose a heavy burden on them but they do not show irreparable loss and being so, they have an adequate remedy at law. City of West Palm Beach v. Zeller, 91 Fla. 223, 107 So. 146; Rawls v. City of Miami, 82 Fla. 65, 89 So. 351; Town of Orange City v. Thayer, 45 Fla. 502, 34 So. 573.
It is settled law that injunction should never be granted where the remedy at law is adequate. This court has approved the doctrine that even a void municipal ordinance should not'be restrained if its enforcement amounts to a mere trespass for which adequate remedy at law is available. If irreparable injury is relied on, that is to say, injury of such a nature that it cannot be redressed in a court of law, the facts constituting such injury must be set up *469so clearly that the court may determine the extent of the possible injury and grant relief by injunction if justified.
The ordinance assaulted reveals nothing more than an attempt on the part of the city to regulate tourist camps, trailer parks, and tent cities in the interest of the public by imposing on them reasonable health. and sanitary restrictions. Such restrictions always impose extra burdens on those affected but the rule is generally recognized that where the interest of the individual and the interest of the public run counter, that of the individual must give away unless the burden imposed be arbitrary and unreasonable.
The judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Buford, J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Palm Beach Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Strong, 300 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1974)…is unquestionable under its broad police power in view of the fact that this enterprise peculiarly affects the public interest and bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Egan v. City of Miami, et al., 130 Fla. 465, 178 So. 132 (1938); 54 Am.Jur.2d Mobile Homes, § 5; 22 A.L.R.2d 774; Hodes and Roberson, The Law of Mobile Homes 2nd Ed.; “Regulation of Mobile Homes,” 13 Syracuse Law Review 125. The right to contract and to use one’s property as one wills are fun…
-
Shevin v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 333 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1976)…8 (Fla.1970) (on reh.); State ex rel. Mann v. Burns, 109 So. 2d 195 (Fla.App.1st 1959); State ex rel. Robert L. Turchin, Inc. v. Herin, supra. Just as equitable remedies are unavailable when there is an adequate remedy at law, Egan v. City of Miami, 130 Fla. 465, 178 So. 132 (1938); City of Jacksonville v. Giller, 102 Fla. 92, 135 So. 549 (1931), so relief by mandamus is unavailable unless “no other adequate remedy exists.” State ex rel. Blatt v. Panelfab Int’l Corp., 314 So. 2d 196, 198 (Fla.App.3d 1975);…
-
Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 212 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…porary injunction against Tamiami. Reversed. REED and OWEN, JJ., concur. . North Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 347. . Stoner v. South Peninsula Zoning Commission, Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 831; Egan v. City of Miami, 1938, 130 Fla. 465, 178 So. 132. .Daniel v. Williams, Fla.App.1966, 189 So. 2d 640; see also Professional Golfers Ass’n v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., Fla. App.1964, 166 So. 2d 488.…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sanders v. Ira C. Howell, 73 Fla. 563 (Fla. 1917)
- Bodeker v. McCormick, 101 Fla. 585 (Fla. 1931)
- State v. City of Miami, 101 Fla. 292 (Fla. 1931)
- The City of Apalachicola v. State, 93 Fla. 921 (Fla. 1927)
- City of W. Palm Beach v. Zellar, 91 Fla. 223 (Fla. 1926)
- State v. City of Miami, 117 Fla. 594 (Fla. 1934)
- Rawls v. City of Miami, 82 Fla. 65 (Fla. 1921)
- Town of Orange City v. Thayer, 45 Fla. 502 (Fla. 1903)
- Miller v. Quigg, 87 Fla. 462 (Fla. 1924)